There's an interesting thought. Politics has become such an industry and media behemoth that the powers-that-be have a vested interest in keeping the race as close as possible so as to keep the money flowing.

Virginia went to Obama by the slimmest of margins in 2008. The idea that the last 4 years of broken promises didn't sour 1% of his voters is kind of silly. While I don't want either of these clowns to win, I don't think Obama has a chance in Virginia.

Northern VA has had a steady increase of people like me (left-leaning, well-educated from elsewhere) that make it possible for Obama to win. I would be more surprised if Romney wins the state. Kaine is also currently ahead of Allen in the VA Senate race.

In 8 years, VA will no longer be a swing state and be solidly blue. Long live migration! This is assuming the GOP doesn't change its anti-science, anti-immigration, etc positions.

Virginia went to Obama by the slimmest of margins in 2008. The idea that the last 4 years of broken promises didn't sour 1% of his voters is kind of silly. While I don't want either of these clowns to win, I don't think Obama has a chance in Virginia.

Northern VA has had a steady increase of people like me (left-leaning, well-educated from elsewhere) that make it possible for Obama to win. I would be more surprised if Romney wins the state. Kaine is also currently ahead of Allen in the VA Senate race.

In 8 years, VA will no longer be a swing state and be solidly blue. Long live migration! This is assuming the GOP doesn't change its anti-science, anti-immigration, etc positions.

Yes, Virginia is becoming a richer, more educated state. It will continue to get more jobs and become less redneck (It's becoming more like Maryland).
The GOP is going to have a hard time there in the future.

Last Halloween I posted that Obama would win in a land-slide because I am at heart an optimist. What rational, sane observer of the Republican field could conclude anything else? Any one of the clown car occupants in the White House? No way.

I was confident I was right until the aftermath of the October 3 debate. What seemed to happen was that the hundreds of thousands of former GOP members who have been driven out by the radical fundamentalists over the last 30 years were sitting at home not paying all that much attention until suddenly seeing Romney as not as bad as they had heard. He was not the 'severe conservative' he had said he was. So, voila! Mitt's A-OK. This was encouraged by the MSM who wanted a close race.

There is an outside chance that Mitt will win the popular vote with massive support from the South (he could win the presidency of the Confederacy) while losing the Electoral College. If that happens, there will almost certainly be civil unrest, unlike in 2000. I don't think it will happen, but it could. A second possibility is that there will be civil disturbances because conservatives have been told that Mitt is winning and (obviously) Obama could only win if there is cheating. Massive voter suppression attempts have been taking place in almost half the states (this is pure Rovian strategy—attack the other side for what you are doing yourself). Things could well get ugly fast. This is more likely.

My gut tells me we are all being punked by the polling companies who are tinkering with their polls in order to get attention. Obama will win a comfortable majority. On the other hand, I have a Plan B. It is to go home and get a gun and some training so I can exercise my Second Amendment Rights (thank you, Sharon) and take out 2 or 3 right wingers before they get me.

There is significant evidence of tampering of the vote by Republicans including the fact that computerized voting machines are owned by a company that Romney is a significant investor in. It is starting to be talked about but not seriously enough.

Politics in America is becoming more and more about power and less and less about ideas and even actual vote counts.

There is significant evidence of tampering of the vote by Republicans including the fact that computerized voting machines are owned by a company that Romney is a significant investor in. It is starting to be talked about but not seriously enough.

Politics in America is becoming more and more about power and less and less about ideas and even actual vote counts.

I was talking about this with my girlfriend last night and she couldn't believe something like that would be allowed in the United States. I wonder what kind of deal is being made about it on the news at home? I see many more articles on the internet, but then again, I have a lot of time to be looking around.

Well that just goes to show ya, entitlements for the right are deserved, entitlements for the left are the end of our society.

This is spot on.

Societies are artificial constructs. SOMEONE always runs the show. If it is MY group, then we worked hard to earn our position. Anyone else is a sleaze bag who is cheating.

'Entitlement' is a con.

Chevron, with their mega-billion subsidies is a job creator and is entitled to their subsidies. Someone on food stamps because the banks blew up the economy is a drain on the system because they are lazy and undeserving.

Chevron, with their mega-billion subsidies is a job creator and is entitled to their subsidies. Someone on food stamps because the banks blew up the economy is a drain on the system because they are lazy and undeserving.

There is a glimmer of an awakening to the reality of this con.

Now some of us just have to start supporting a political party that doesn't throw taxpayer's money at banks/corporations.

Now some of us just have to start supporting a political party that doesn't throw taxpayer's money at banks/corporations.

I wish you'd take that step Ya-ta, I really do.

Are you saying that you are anti-capitalist?

A hundred years ago it was known that the shrimp businesses in capitalist economies ate their smaller competitors until they were whales and could threaten the system itself. Teddy saw this and became a trust-buster. Over the last 30 years the conservative philosophy of hands off has dominated--but forgot this.

Only government is strong enough (and lately it has not been strong enough, or better--not motivated) to do this.

You appear to be a market fundamentalist, an ally of Christian fundamentalists. So 20th Century.

Don't know if it was mentioned as I can't be bothered to check the last several pages of posts but like Virginia, a once solid red state, North Carolina is going 'purple' and will be a swing state for some time due to changng demographics as well.

North Carolinians will know what I mean by 'the Triangle' an area that is bloomed in research and such and has attracted a lot of out of staters. Very educated, northern and liberal or mderate. The state will likely go to Romney but it will always be in play.

Colorado and Nevada have a large and ever increasing latino population that will continue to put those states in play.

The Republican party is losing the demographics trends in its present state. It needs moderates to win natioanal elections but the religious right and the tea partiers won't allow that. There will be a civil war within the party over this.

You appear to be a market fundamentalist, an ally of Christian fundamentalists. So 20th Century.

Isn't it a little too easy to label the other guy as a "fundamentalist" (or terrorist) when you may disagree?

Anyway, you were lamenting the government subsidizing big businesses and blaming consumers for the failures of banks. I'm 100% behind that. Both political parties are actively throwing poor people's money at bloated, uncompetitive corporations.

The difference is that I prefer a party which will stop giving your money to corporations AND prevent corporations from co-opting the government (and the only way to do that is to weaken unnecessary government powers). Whereas you're willing to accept a party that wholeheartedly taxes you and gives that money to corporations, while writing "regulations" that the corporations themselves are manipulating to their own benefit.

You appear to be a market fundamentalist, an ally of Christian fundamentalists. So 20th Century.

Isn't it a little too easy to label the other guy as a "fundamentalist" (or terrorist) when you may disagree?

Anyway, you were lamenting the government subsidizing big businesses and blaming consumers for the failures of banks. I'm 100% behind that. Both political parties are actively throwing poor people's money at bloated, uncompetitive corporations.

The difference is that I prefer a party which will stop giving your money to corporations AND prevent corporations from co-opting the government (and the only way to do that is to weaken unnecessary government powers). Whereas you're willing to accept a party that wholeheartedly taxes you and gives that money to corporations, while writing "regulations" that the corporations themselves are manipulating to their own benefit.

I'm criticizing a type of thinking, a rather uncritical style of thinking, at that. The kind of thinking that can be categorized as ideology.

It appears your ideology is interfering with your reading comprehension.

I did not object to the government bailing out the banks. I objected to the government allowing the banks to grow so big that their failure could endanger the economic health of the rest of us. However, once that mistake had been made, I saw no alternative to bailing out the crooks. My objection was a) that the crooks were not punished for their behavior (illustrative hangings from lamp posts on Wall Street would have gone a long way in correcting the problem), b) remedial measures were not taken later by breaking up the banks, and c) the same type of bail out measures were not taken to help out the victims of the underwater mortgages, many of whom were victims of predatory lending.

You are quite right that it is a problem, a major problem, that lobbyists from the industries manipulate the regulations that affect those industries. You see the solution as weakening the victim; I see the solution as strengthening the victim so as to combat the predatory corporations.

You have bought into the idea that markets solve everything. To my way of thinking, that is monomania.